Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

Kelley USA wrote:Well, the loopnet listing was updated just 4 days ago. However, it's not the cylindrical design that was once kicked around. It's the other design which I think has been the preferred design by Hillwood for awhile now. Maybe something is moving forward?? Listing and marketing brochure links below.

https://www.loopnet.com/listing/2012-n- ... x/7027841/

https://images2.loopnet.com/d2/n3SMpI1i ... cument.pdf

Hmmmm...707 ft isn’t bad. It’s not over 1,000 ft like I was hoping for though.

Kelley USA wrote:Well, the loopnet listing was updated just 4 days ago. However, it's not the cylindrical design that was once kicked around. It's the other design which I think has been the preferred design by Hillwood for awhile now. Maybe something is moving forward?? Listing and marketing brochure links below.

https://www.loopnet.com/listing/2012-n- ... x/7027841/

https://images2.loopnet.com/d2/n3SMpI1i ... cument.pdf

Man, I really hope this is true. I absolutely hate that (lazy, 40+ year-old retread) cylindrical design, and would be delighted to see this other tower get built.

Man I hope this happens! Ill take either tower.

eburress wrote:

Kelley USA wrote:Well, the loopnet listing was updated just 4 days ago. However, it's not the cylindrical design that was once kicked around. It's the other design which I think has been the preferred design by Hillwood for awhile now. Maybe something is moving forward?? Listing and marketing brochure links below.

https://www.loopnet.com/listing/2012-n- ... x/7027841/

https://images2.loopnet.com/d2/n3SMpI1i ... cument.pdf

Man, I really hope this is true. I absolutely hate that (lazy, 40+ year-old retread) cylindrical design, and would be delighted to see this other tower get built.

Really? I thought the cyclinder was a better design than the rectangular tower.

I'll say this though, the rectangular tower does seem mesh better with Fountain place.

The cyclinder looking one looked anemic and a little out of place.

I don't like either tbh. Lol

eburress wrote:

Kelley USA wrote:Well, the loopnet listing was updated just 4 days ago. However, it's not the cylindrical design that was once kicked around. It's the other design which I think has been the preferred design by Hillwood for awhile now. Maybe something is moving forward?? Listing and marketing brochure links below.

https://www.loopnet.com/listing/2012-n- ... x/7027841/

https://images2.loopnet.com/d2/n3SMpI1i ... cument.pdf

Man, I really hope this is true. I absolutely hate that (lazy, 40+ year-old retread) cylindrical design, and would be delighted to see this other tower get built.

You make a vailed point.

It would have been nice to see more
variety.

Chicago Spire?

clcrash19 wrote:Man I hope this happens! Ill take either tower.

It's Polly just a parking space.. or temporary project that will generate revenue.

They're dumping dirt on the empty lot, smoothing it with a Bobcat and then steamrolling it. Any idea the point of this? First reaction is parking lot but why would they put the construction site banner fence up? Anyone in the forum work / commute near there and can read what the signage says?

Staging area for KWP expansion?

I like the rectangular design better, but was hoping for a taller tower. We need a new tallest and so does the state of Texas.

After looking at the marketing brochure, I noticed something quite familiar....

We saw this design a long time ago, I think before the tall cylinder one. I don't think it was ever a serious design.

jetnd87 wrote:They're dumping dirt on the empty lot, smoothing it with a Bobcat and then steamrolling it. Any idea the point of this? First reaction is parking lot but why would they put the construction site banner fence up?

If the project were underway, and there's (per the Loopnet .pdf) multiple levels of underground parking, I would think the blue construction barrier would be followed by *lots and lots* of earthmoving to dig that much dirt out (after all the utility arrangements were made, of course), instead of just a little bobcat playing in the dirt.

Muncien wrote:Staging area for KWP expansion?

That's a thought, if the park expansion plans were that far along, and Hillwood didn't mind the use of a potential development site for another reason for awhile. There hasn't been any word from the City or TxDOT that we're about to see more foundation work or piers/pilings for a park expansion yet.

Dallaz wrote:Hmmmm...707 ft isn’t bad. It’s not over 1,000 ft like I was hoping for though.

Does Hillwood have enough (or see enough) demand for a building taller than 707 feet? Do they even have enough potential tenants lined up for 707 feet? Surely Perot Jr./friends won't be overly speculative with the building, whatever is built there.

Whatever they do, I love the looks of the skinnier version over the cylinder, think it fits better.

I like this version better than the tripple A battery. Nonetheless, the design is nothing exciting. Generic at best. Glassy and blase at worst. But it's still much better than the Foster battery.

joshua.dodd wrote:I like this version better than the tripple A battery. Nonetheless, the design is nothing exciting. Generic at best. Glassy and blase at worst. But it's still much better than the Foster battery.

Maybe they are taking their cue from the Fountain Place towers and prefer something that appears to compliment the buildings next door and not take away from it. A trio of sculpted glass towers would be more appealing than two next to a giant cylindrical battery shaped tower.

why not something ultra modern, or at least as different from the surroundings as Fountain Place back in the day.

Those would blow my mind- especially 1 & 3.

The Dallas skyline has enough "fat," rectangular or square towers. A skinny tower would help accentuate the height of the skyline, because the thick office buildings make the buildings look shorter than they are. I like the cylinder based designs.

I especially like number the first picture but it's a bold design and not one I would expect to rise in Dallas.

Yep, any of those would be a dramatic improvement over either of the proposed retreads.

Nothing new here

Apparently, Hillwood Urban's plans have stalled & grown stagnate. So many other projects are moving forward, while this remains in the concept stage only.

Well the biggest relo in a long time went to DE, not sure what would be in the pipeline to get his tower out of the ground, especially with Harwood actively marketing their new tower as well.

Hillwood should go mixed use on this one.

Just a matter of time before this one moves, in some form or fashion. With the recent (record) acquisition of the former "museum" parking lots, the renovated Fountain Place, and the forthcoming AMLI, this area of downtown should be quite hot with development for some time. That's not even mentioning any knock-on effects of KWP expansion or the for-sale El Fenix plots.

For what it's worth, the project no longer appears on LoopNet and I can't seem to find it on the Hillwood website. I would say this is either going through a new design process or it's d-e-a-d!

"They should aim for making it the tallest building West of the Mississippi River. Dallas' tallest have traditionally held this title. We need to reclaim that title once again. And without a cheater spire!"

What a perfect time for Dallas to reclaim that title again!

LA did that with the Wilshire Grand but I believe that is a mixed use tower and is not what Hillwood has planned. I don't think Hillwood can make it work with the current plan.

I was surprised when it was announced that it wasn’t mixed use. I can’t see this building ever getting off the ground as just office space. I hope they’re reworking their plan and it’s not dead.

Wilshire Grand has a lightening rod on the roof that makes it the tallest building in LA. It's a multi-use tower, which is now the most common type of building in LA. Hotel, condos/apartments, & offices.

Ignoring Wilshire Grand, Perot or any other new "west of the Mississippi" would still have to be taller than the 1,070-foot Salesforce crown:

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildi ... -tower/290

I45Tex wrote:Ignoring Wilshire Grand, Perot or any other new "west of the Mississippi" would still have to be taller than the 1,070-foot Salesforce crown:

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildi ... -tower/290

However, if an architect padded the height with a crown and/or spires, so that it was ruled architecturally taller than 1,451 feet (Chicago's Willis Tower), then skyscraper nerds would have to no longer make lists of "tallest outside of NYC and Chicago" (a more exclusive crown than the west of the Mississippi) but rather, "tallest outside of NY, Texas and Chicago."

Hillwood is a very conservative developer and not likely to risk going tall or trouble with a mixed-use tower. They’ll have to sell this parcel to someone else for either to happen.

Cbdallas wrote:"They should aim for making it the tallest building West of the Mississippi River. Dallas' tallest have traditionally held this title. We need to reclaim that title once again. And without a cheater spire!"

If that was ever truly the case, it was a very long time ago. It has been 50 years since a Dallas building has held that title.

EDIT: Because I'm a geek and am fascinated by these types of things, I've put together a list of the Tallest Buildings West of the Mississippi going back to 1914 (please offer corrections if you see any errors). So, it's a pretty big stretch to say that Dallas' tallest have "traditionally" held the title of tallest west of the Mississippi. (24 years out of 105... We had a good run there in the 40s, 50s and 60s; otherwise, not at all)

1914-1931: Smith Tower Seattle 462 ft
1931-1943: KC Power & Light Kansas City 481 ft
1943-1954: Mercantile Nat'l Dallas 523 ft
1954-1963: Republic Bank Dallas 602 ft
1963-1965: ExxonMobil Houston 606 ft
1965-1969: First Nat'l Dallas 625 ft
1969-1972: 555 California San Francisco 779 ft
1972-1973: TransAmerica San Francisco 853 ft
1973-1982: AON Center LA 858 ft
1982-1989: JP Morgan Chase Tower Houston 1,002 ft
1989-2017: US Bank Tower LA 1018 ft
2017-present: Wilshire Grand LA 1099 ft

^ At least we held it far longer than Houston.

I forget are there any FAA height restrictions on this site. We need to get into the super tall club! I'd also like to see some more infill buildings (400'-800') on some of these empty parking lots downtown. If we are going to have a metro population bigger than Chicago soon we a downtown that at least starts to match them.

I am fine with Dallas focusing on good density not height just because a few bros need something to measure up to. The whole space race in highrise height does nothing for making Downtown a safe and stable neighborhood of quality spaces with economic security. We need more infill that brings residential, ground floor activation, parks, schools, neighborhood services. Rarely do supertall towers serve anyone more than a few in need of a trophy for the mantel. I am all about projects that give us some height and someplace corporate America wants to raise their flag but not without realizing the value other factors the built environment can have on creating real places people want to be.

cowboyeagle05 wrote:I am fine with Dallas focusing on good density not height just because a few bros need something to measure up to. The whole space race in highrise height does nothing for making Downtown a safe and stable neighborhood of quality spaces with economic security. We need more infill that brings residential, ground floor activation, parks, schools, neighborhood services. Rarely do supertall towers serve anyone more than a few in need of a trophy for the mantel. I am all about projects that give us some height and someplace corporate America wants to raise their flag but not without realizing the value other factors the built environment can have on creating real places people want to be.

AMEN

cowboyeagle05 wrote:I am fine with Dallas focusing on good density not height just because a few bros need something to measure up to. The whole space race in highrise height does nothing for making Downtown a safe and stable neighborhood of quality spaces with economic security. We need more infill that brings residential, ground floor activation, parks, schools, neighborhood services. Rarely do supertall towers serve anyone more than a few in need of a trophy for the mantel. I am all about projects that give us some height and someplace corporate America wants to raise their flag but not without realizing the value other factors the built environment can have on creating real places people want to be.

Yes to all of this. Right now we need ten 5-story buildings far more than we need one 50-story building. I'll start clamoring for a skyscraper when we've all but eliminated the surface parking lots within the CBD.

Probably another nothingburger, but I've noticed several what I assume to be drilling trucks / rigs on this site. I'd assume they're drilling for soil samples? Not sure if anyone on the forum has any knowledge or better guesses.

I could swear they did a core sample after they tor down the old stuff on the site. Maybe they need to keep doing them just in case they do sign a tenant and need to move fast?

Certainly seems like lots of developers are still circling some sort of tenant who may be looking at Dallas as an option. The Honda HQ relocation story certainly seems like more drama than reality.

Found this...idk if this has been posted

https://www.hillwoodurban.com/projects/ ... eld-street

^ It's a very nice looking tower but now they just need to double or triple its height.

^ or even better, quadruple.

So we've gone from 50 stories to 16? "An Opportunity to Change the Dallas Skyline"

Oh I knew this would happen. Did anybody not think that we would get this or another 20 story apartment tower? I thought maybe AMLI would buy this or somebody like them.

Skyline changers going up in cities all across the country but booming Dallas can't seem to get it done.

I don't think they're trying to sell you on this design as much as they are trying to sell you on building YOUR design. It reads more like a build-to-suit opportunity. I think they're just being realistic as to where the market is right now with 15 - 30 story projects and how that might be more attractive for a company looking to build.

Hillwood is always so underwhelming.

I've asked it before and I'll ask it again - why can't Dallas support 50 stories plus projects? I mean the area is adding 1.5M residents per decade. I acknowledge that we're spread out and the corporate / residential high-rise growth is distributed throughout DFW, particularly CBD, Frisco, Plano, Las Colinas, but still, LA is spread out and they've added a skyline changer in the last few years. Chicago is too (e.g., 101 story Vista Tower) and they're basically flat population-wise. Is land still that cheap here to where it doesn't warrant the height? All these new office buildings in the CBD have pretty much leased up within a year of opening. Anyone knowledgeable out there that can alleviate my confusion?

https://www.bisnow.com/dallas-ft-worth/ ... rket-96023

“While Downtown Dallas is seeing a major transformation in hotels and residential, the fact remains that Downtown Dallas has one of the highest office vacancy rates in the nation,” CBRE Advisory and Transaction Services Vice Chairman Phil Puckett said. “We are still suffering from the hangover of all the office space constructed in the mid-1980s.”

^^ I think the counter to that is companies aren't interested in locating to 80's style buildings. While there might be a bit of office vacancy, I do believe that most of the new more modern projects tend to lease up quickly.

What are the vacancy rates say between buildings built in the 80's / early 90's and those built within the last 10 years? That's probably a better gauge.

And what does that mean for those 80s office buildings? Do they require a new investor to put in capex to make them competitive with newer product? Should / can they be converted to residential? On the surface, it just baffles me that we have experienced this amount of economic and population growth and have seen *0* buildings at or above 50 stories. Now I am much more excited about true urban density, walkability, street activation, mixed use sustainability, etc., but come on. We're the 9th biggest city in the 4th biggest (and fastest growing) metro and have yet to see a true skyscraper much less supertall enter the picture 10 years into the "cycle."